| Summary: | 碩士 === 長榮大學 === 職業安全與衛生研究所 === 97 === Purpose of this study was to understand current situation of safety climate, safety behavior and occupational injuries among construction workers, and to further investigation the association between personal factors and the aforementioned factors. This was a cross-sectional study, where 503 construction workers were invited purposively to complete a structured questionnaire. Information collected in the questionnaire included personal information, safety climates, safety behavior and experience of occupational injuries. Personal information contained age, gender, education, marital status, job types, hiring status, safety and health education, understanding of safety and health, working hours per day, working days per month, and satisfaction of pay. Safety climate was defined as the perception of workplace for construction workers. Safety climate was measured with a scale that contained two dimensions including work rules/equipments and personal protection gears and attention to safety. Safety behavior was defined as worker’s behavior follows the procedures or rules at work. Safety behavior was measured with a scale that contained two dimensions including participation in safety behavior and attentions to safety behavior. Data analysis utilized Statistical software SPSS v.12, where Logistic Regression was applied to model the association between relevant factors and safety climate, safety behavior and occupational injuries. The followings were important results from the study:
1.Among the construction workers, 34% percent of workers reported having near miss experience and 11% of workers reported having taking at least one day off due to occupational injuries.
2.Multivariate analysis showed that satisfaction of pay, understating of workplace safety and health, and hiring status were importantly associated with workers’ perception of safety climate. ORs for those not satisfying with pay or not understaning workplace safety and health were 7.27 (95% CI = 3.63 – 14.56) and 20.88 (95% CI=4.50-98.86), respectively. Compared to full time workers, ORs for self-employed and pay by case workers were 3.75 (95% CI=1.45-9.73) and 1.94 (95% CI=1.05-3.60).
3.Multivariate analysis showed that perception of safety climate, satisfaction of pay and hourly work per day were importantly associated with safety behavior. Compared with workers who had higher safety climate score, workers who had lower safety climate score had lower safety behavior score, with OR=98.29 (95%CI=41.19-234.53). Relative to workers who were satistifed with their pays, workers who were not had lower safety behavior score, with OR=3.47 (95%=1.50-8.03). Compared to wokers who worked 8 hours or less per day, workers who work more than 12 hours per day had lower safety behavior score (OR=11.59, 95%CI=2.57-52.28).
4.Multivariate analysis showed that, compared to workers who had higher safety climate score, workers who had lower safety climate score had higher risk of nearmiss and events that resulting in at least one day away from work (OR=98.29, 95%CI=41.19-234.53 and 2.19 (95%CI=1.01-4.73). Compared to worker who had higher safety behavior score, workers who did not had higher risk of events resulting from at least one day away from work (2.76, 95%CI=1.28-5.95).
Safety climate not only associated with safety behavior, but also with occupational nearmiss and days away from work. This study found that workers had lower score in the dimension of safety perception, therefore management in construction industry should not limit their prevention strategies on training, emergency plan and improvement of machinery equipment only, but also has to supervise workers’ usage of personal protective equipments and enhance supervisors’ attention on workplace safety.
|
|---|
